Replies to post #97342 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Dishfan]

Corp_Buyer, do you expect to see any shareholder proposals on the annual meeting agenda (which we should see next month)?

[dndodd]

Corp,

Don't you ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over?

I know alot of us lurkers on the board get tired of hearing it.


David

[JimLur]

Corp_Buyer, I find it very strange that the legal people on this thread don't seem to share your view on this issue. If F and J or management did something wrong I'm sure one of the legal people here would have backed you up.

I suggest we drop this issue.

[2112]

Corp....unfortunately it does work that way and indeed has worked that way as evidenced by Nok's successful motion. Imagine if the settlement was conditioned upon vacatur. Ericy could now rescind given the outcome of Nok's motion.

IMO, conditioning the settlement upon vacatur could have been disasterous. While it is true that had the settlement been conditioned upon vacatur, the trial court may have denied Nok's motion due to the prejudicial effect upon the settlement, it is also true that some creative lawyer could have crafted an argument around Barnum which compelled an opposite result. Even if the court did not agree with that creative lawyer, it would have wound up on appeal and the Ericy settlement would have been in jeopardy during the entire appeal process.

Additionally, multiply that creative lawyer's argument by the number of infringers who would have also like to see the psjs unvacated and imagine the uncertainty which could have resulted. These were very real issues which F&J and the BOD had to contend with and consider at the time the settlement agreement was drafted.

IMO there was no error, it was a calculated risk.

[loophole73]

Corp

IDCC and Ericy relied on Rule 54 regarding vacating previous orders in order to settle the case. BanCorp did not deal with dismissals at all and only dealt with appealable verdicts, judgments and consent judgments. The parties intentionally waited for the vacating order to be signed before submitting their respective Dismissal with Prejudice Orders. Any lawyer or jurist that cannot recognize that the Vacating Order was an integral part of the settlement is smoking crack. Judge Lynn knew exactly what was going on and the reasoning behind cleaning up the mess of a previous judge rather than running through a lengthy appeals process. Their is a reason for the Judge using the term "circular" in his questioning because Judge Lynn circled around the end using a case supplied by Nok that she expanded on her own reasoning. All any lawyer can do is practice the law existing at the time of the representation. A lawyer cannot be held liable because a judge circles the existing law and attempts to create new law to justify her desired ruling. Under your theory, every expansion of the law that was later affirmed at the appeals level would constitute negligence on the part of the lawyers losing on that issue. I repeat, the lawyers did not have to make the settlement contingent upon the signing of the vacating order because it was already signed before the final submission of the dismissals. As a practical matter, federal judges are literally parties to every settlement because they have the complete power to comment on the weight of the evidence offered at trial and are very tenacious about reminding the parties at the settlement conferences.

MO
loop